Challenges of CPAS Flight Testing

Eric S. Ray1
Jacobs ESCG, Houston, TX, 77598

Aaron L. Morris2
Barrios Technology, Houston, TX, 77598

The Crew Exploration Vehicle Parachute Assembly System (CPAS) is being designed to
land the Orion Crew Module (CM) at a safe rate of descent at splashdown via a series of
Drogue, Pilot, and Main parachutes. Because Orion is considerably larger and heavier than
Apollo, many of the flight test techniques developed during the Apollo program must be
modified. The Apollo program had a dedicated C-133 aircraft, which was modified to allow
a simple airdrop of “boilerplate” flight test vehicles. However, the CPAS program must use
either commercial or military assets with minimal modifications to airframes or procedures.
Conceptual envelopes from 2-Degree Of Freedom trajectories are presented for several
existing and novel architectures. Ideally, the technique would deliver a representative
capsule shape to the desired altitude and dynamic pressure at test initiation. However,
compromises must be made on the characteristics of trajectories or the fidelity of test articles
to production hardware. Most of the tests to date have used traditional pallet and weight tub
or missile-shaped test vehicles. New test vehicles are being designed to better incorporate
Orion structural components and deploy parachutes in a more representative fashion. The
first attempt to test a capsule-shaped vehicle failed due to unexpected events while setting up
the test condition through a series of complex procedures. In order to avoid the loss of
another expensive test article which will delay the program, simpler deployment methods
are being examined and more positive control of the vehicle will be maintained. Existing
challenges include interfacing with parent aircraft, separating test vehicles, achieving test
conditions, and landing within limited test ranges. All these challenges must be met within
cost and schedule limits.

Nomenclature
ARD = Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator
CDT = Cluster Development Test (series)
CEV = Crew Exploration Vehicle
CG = Center of Gravity
CM = (Orion) Crew Module or (Apollo) Command Module
CMS = Cradle Monorail System
CPAS = Crew Exploration Vehicle Parachute Assembly System
CPSS = Cradle and Platform Separation System
DDT = Drogue Development Test (series)
DOF = Degree Of Freedom
DTV = Drop Test Vehicle
DZ = Drop Zone
EDU = Engineering Development Unit
esa = European Space Agency
ESCG = Engineering Services Contract Group

1
Analysis Engineer, Aerothermal and Flight Mechanics, 455 E. Medical Center Blvd., Webster, TX, AIAA
Member.
2
CPAS Analysis IPT Chair, Aerothermal and Flight Mechanics, 455 E. Medical Center Blvd., Webster, TX, AIAA
Senior Member.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Gen = Generation
ICTV = Instrumented Cylindrical Test Vehicle
KCAS = Knots Calibrated Airspeed
KEAS = Knots Equivalent Airspeed
KTM = Kineto Tracking Mount (camera)
LDTV = Large Drop Test Vehicle
PTV = Parachute Test Vehicle (“dart” shape for Apollo or “capsule” shape for CPAS)
1
q, q , qbar = Dynamic pressure, q     Vair 2
2
MDT = Main Development Test (series)
MDTV = Medium Drop Test Vehicle
MSL = Mean Sea Level
psf = Pounds per square foot
, rho = Humidity-Corrected Atmospheric Density
SCA = Shuttle Carrier Aircraft
SRB = Solid Rocket Booster
Vair = Total airspeed relative to air mass
YPG = Yuma Proving Ground

I. Introduction

T HE Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Parachute Assembly System

(CPAS) must demonstrate the ability to safely land its crew through
flight testing. The CEV was described as “Apollo on steroids.” As the CEV
Orion Parachute
Compartment
Apollo Parachute
Compartment
(Diameter70”)
changed into the current Orion Crew Module (CM), many of the original (Diameter108”)
capabilities were scaled down, but the physical differences between Apollo
and Orion are still apparent, as shown in Figure 1. (1) The final Apollo design
was 105 inches tall with a maximum diameter of 154 inches. The current
Orion design is about 142 inches tall with a diameter of about 217 inches. It
will be shown that the larger diameter of the parachute compartment
becomes a particular issue with aircraft interfaces during flight testing.
The current Orion landing system architecture is similar to Apollo, as
shown in Figure 2.(2) Both systems use two mortar-deployed drogue Figure 1. Dimension comparison
parachutes for initial deceleration. Then three mortar-deployed pilot between Orion and Apollo capsules.
parachutes each lift and deploy a main parachute. Each system is intended to
be robust enough to land safely should either a single drogue or single main parachute fail to function.
To human rate the landing system, flight tests need to test representative hardware under realistic conditions. The
drogue deployment envelopes for Apollo and CPAS are compared in Figure 3. Getting a test article to the high
altitudes and dynamic pressures that would be seen during reentry presents a challenge to any parent vehicle short of
a rocket.
Mortar Deployed
1st Stage
FHS Jettison t=0 sec
Drogues deployed t=1.6 sec
Drogue Jettison, Pilots/Mains Deploy
Drogues: 2 – 16.5 ft Alt=10000ft 2nd Stage
Conical Ribbon
FHS chute
Full
Open Mortar Deployed

Pilot Deployed

1st Stage

2nd Stage
Full Open
Pilots: 3 – 7.2 ft
Ringsail Drogues
Mains: – 85.6 ft
Ringsail

Pilots

Mains

Figure 2. Apollo and CPAS parachute sequences.

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 50,000
q=5 psf q=15 psf q=30 psf q=70 psf q=115 psf
45,000 q=130 psf
CPAS Drogue Deploy
40,000 (demonstration region) q=167 psf
q=204 psf
35,000
CPAS Drogue
Altitude (ft MSL)

30,000
Deploy
25,000
Apollo
20,000
Drogue
15,000 Deploy
Apollo Main Deploy
10,000
8,500
6,770 CPAS Main Deploy
5,000 5,000
4,000
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Mach Number

Figure 3. Parachute Deploy Envelope Comparison.

II. Apollo Test Vehicles

The Apollo test program was broken into three blocks. The final phase, Block II Increased Capability, consisted
of 38 flight tests, including 7 qualification flight tests of operationally representative hardware. This paper will focus
on this block because it is similar in scope to CPAS. Several types of parent aircraft and test articles were used
during Apollo flight testing. A summary of the release conditions of these tests is shown in Figure 4.(3) Note that the
actual parachute system initiation
generally occurred at lower altitudes Apollo Flight Test Release Conditions
Block II - Increased Capability
when the test articles accelerated to 60,000
q=5 psf q=15 psf q=30 psf q=70 psf
the proper test conditions.
q=115 psf
B-52
50,000 q=130 psf

q=167 psf
q=204 psf
40,000
Altitude (ft MSL)

C-133
30,000
ICTV

20,000
PTV

Boilerplate
10,000
B-66
B-52

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Mach Number

Figure 4. Apollo Block II Increased Capability test release conditions.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
A. Instrumented Cylindrical Test Vehicle (ICTV) and Parachute Test Vehicle (PTV)
The simplest test article was a bomb-shaped device about 160 inches long
with a diameter of about 35 inches, designated Instrumented Cylindrical Test
Vehicle (ICTV). The robust design and inexpensive construction, shown in
Figure 5, was idealized for conducting overload testing. The ICTV was dropped
from both a B-66 and the bomb bay of a B-52. Due to its shape, it could
accelerate to a high dynamic pressure. However, the Apollo parachute
deployment methods could not be replicated on the ICTV, so additional test
vehicles were needed.
Figure 5. Instrumented Cylindrical
Test Vehicle (ICTV).

The Parachute Test

Vehicle (PTV) was
designed to have the
complete parachute
system attached to a
ruggedized structure as
shown in Figure 6. The
vehicle was
streamlined and
heavily ballasted to
achieve high dynamic
pressures at drogue
mortar firing. The PTV Figure 6. Parachute Test Vehicle (PTV).
was about 128 inches long with a diameter equal to the Parachute
Subsystem upper deck of about 70 inches. The entire parachute sequence
could be conducted and the system would descend carrying the correct
Apollo weight under clusters of either two or three main parachutes, as
shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Main parachutes deployed from

PTV during Drop Test 84-4.
The PTV was compatible with two parent aircraft, depending on
the test requirements. Low altitude tests could be conducted by
extracting the PTV on a sled from a C-133 Cargomaster. This
technique is shown in Figure 8. The ballasted nose of the PTV
allowed for a stable separation from the extraction pallet.
Figure 8. PTV extraction from C-133. Higher altitude tests required a B-52. The diameter of the PTV
was just able to fit inside the bomb bay.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 B. Boilerplate
Several buildup tests and all qualification tests were conducted using “boilerplate” capsules, which simulated the
physical characteristics of the Apollo Command Module, including the production parachute system. These
boilerplates were released from a modified Douglas C-133 Cargomaster, similar to the contemporary Lockheed C-
130 Hercules. The cargo ramp was removed and an internal cantilevered truss held the capsule, as seen in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Apollo boilerplate capsule loaded on to modified C-133 parent aircraft.

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 This drop test method allowed the Apollo boilerplate q=10 psf q=30 psf q=70 psf q=100 psf
40,000
to test the complete Parachute Subsystem for nominal
85-4 Normal Entry
reentry trajectories as well as failure modes. Launch
q=124 psf

Representative trajectories for three of the seven Block II 30,000

Altitude (ft MSL)

Increased Capability qualification tests are plotted in Programmer
Drogue Mortar Fire
q=204 psf
Disconnect
Figure 10.(4) Mach number and KCAS were computed 20,000
from dynamic pressure and altitude data using the 1976
standard atmosphere.
Test number 85-4 (Figure 10a) was set up to simulate 10,000

the nominal reentry but with a programmed cartridge Drogue Disconnect,

Pilot Mortar Fire
failure in one drogue mortar. The boilerplate was 0
a)
dropped from the C-133 at 33,438 ft MSL and about 136 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Mach Number
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

KCAS and deployed a programmer parachute by static

line. The programmer cut away for drogue mortar fire in
the center of the deploy envelope. 20,000

Test 85-6 (Figure 10b) simulated a pad abort and

manual override of the drogue parachutes. The

Altitude (ft MSL)

boilerplate was released at 10,371 ft MSL and about 179 85-6 Pad Abort
KCAS without a programmer parachute. The boilerplate 10,000
Drogue Disconnect,
Pilot Mortar Fire
Launch

pitched to the desired horizontal attitude at pilot mortar

fire.
Test 85-7 (Figure 10c) simulated a high altitude abort
scenario with programmed failures of one drogue and 0
one pilot parachute. Release conditions were 32,802 ft b) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Mach Number
MSL and about 144 KCAS. The programmer imparted an
q=10 psf q=30 psf q=70 psf q=100 psf
apex forward attitude. The boilerplate completed a 40,000

gravity turn while decelerating under the programmer, 85-7 High Alt. Abort q=124 psf
which then disconnected. The boilerplate remained apex Programmer
Disconnect
Launch
30,000
forward during freefall for 15 seconds to build up speed
Altitude (ft MSL)

Apex forward q=204 psf

and deploy the drogues near the center of the drogue freefall for 15 s Drogue Mortar Fire
deploy “shelf.” 20,000

10,000

Drogue Disconnect,
Pilot Mortar Fire
0

c) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Mach Number
0.5 0.6 0.7

Figure 10. Apollo Block II IC qualification test trajectories

using data from Ref. (4).

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 III. Current CPAS Capabilities
In contrast to the Apollo flight test program, CPAS does not have dedicated aircraft. About two dozen CPAS
flight tests have been conducted to date during Generation (Gen) I and II. Each test used commercial or military
assets on ranges where test procedures are well established. CPAS Gen I and Gen II tests are summarized in Ref. (5)
and Ref. (6), respectively. Preliminary flight test envelopes were determined using a 2-Degree Of Freedom
simulation, though preflight trajectories are generally performed with more sophisticated 6-DOF models.

A. Helicopter Drops of Small Drop Test Vehicle (SDTV) and Medium Drop Test Vehicle (MDTV)
Helicopters can be a relatively 60000
q=5 psf q=15 psf q=30 psf q=70 psf
inexpensive airframe to lift and
q=115 psf
release missile-shaped drop test 50000 q=130 psf
vehicles. A UH-1 can be used to q=167 psf
carry a Small Drop Test Vehicle 40000 MDTV q=204 psf
Freefall
(SDTV) for testing small Altitude (ft MSL) MDTV with
20% reefed
parachutes such as CPAS Pilots. 30000
CPAS Drogue

The CH-47 has been used to test

larger parachutes one at a time
20000
from a Medium Drop Test CH-47 Helo
Release
Vehicle (MDTV). The maximum
10000
reasonable altitude for a safe test
is about 14,000 ft MSL depending
on the operational limits of the 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
particular helicopter. Mach Number
The test envelope for this
method is shown in Figure 11. Figure 11. CH-47 MDTV test envelope.
Missile-shaped test vehicles can quickly accelerate to a very high dynamic pressure (indicated by the dashed
trajectory) but are usually controlled with a programmer parachute to ensure achieving a predictable test point. Even
a relatively small programmer can allow the MDTV to get to high dynamic pressures. The right-side boundary
assumes the drag area of a CPAS Drogue reefed to 20%, yet the dynamic pressure is above 200 psf. However, the
altitude and true airspeeds are far lower than the nominal reentry “shelf” on the CPAS envelope.
Helicopters have also been used to test full-scale spacecraft parachute systems. The Boeing company and Irvin
Aerospace (currently Airborne Systems) demonstrated recovery of a mockup of the Propulsion Module for the
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle by releasing from a CH-47D Chinook.(7) SpaceX tested the parachute recovery
system of its Dragon capsule by releasing from an Erikson S-64F Air-Crane helicopter at about 14,000 ft.(8)
However, the Orion capsule is approximately 30% heavier than the Dragon capsule, which is beyond the lifting
capability of these helicopters.

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
B. C-130 LVAD of MDTV/CMS and Parachute Compartment Drop Test Vehicle (PCDTV)
Another technique is to use the Low Velocity Aerial
Delivery (LVAD) method from a C-130 Hercules. This
technique has been used successfully several times by
Extract MDTV &
CPAS and is illustrated in Figure 12. The MDTV is placed CMS

on a Cradle Monorail System (CMS), and the mated

assembly is extracted from the C-130. Soon after
extraction, the MDTV slides down a rail to separate from Deploy CPAS
Main parachute
Static-line
the CMS and a programmer parachute is static line programmer

deployed. The programmer parachute pulls out the test

parachute when it achieves the test condition.
One drawback of the MDTV is that it cannot release a
MDTV
cluster of parachutes, nor deploy using Orion hardware. slides of f
Cradle
The Parachute Compartment Drop Test Vehicle (PCDTV) Recover
Monorail
System
is being designed to fill this need with a similar CMS

deployment method, shown in Figure 13. The missile-

Figure 12. MDTV/CMS concept of operations.
Ares-like separation
shaped PCDTV will lie on its side on a platform. The
Extract PCDTV & MDS Platform PCDTV aft end has a representative Orion parachute
combination from a C-130
compartment, which is slightly truncated to fit within
the vertical dimensions of the C-130 cargo bay. The
PCDTV will represent most of the important CPAS
Deploy up to three Main Recover MDS with
parachutes Static-line deploy saver parachutes elements including drogue mortars, pilot parachutes,
programmer(s)
and the attachment assembly. The PCDTV and
Mortar deploy one or two
cradle will be extracted from a C-130 using standard
CPAS Drogue parachutes LVAD techniques and separate in mid-air. A similar
concept of operations was used to extract a “Jumbo
Dart” test vehicle from a C-17 during the Ares
Mortar deploy up to three parachute flight test program.(9)
Pilot parachutes
The C-130 is a very common and affordable
Figure 13. Parachute Compartment Drop Test Vehicle aircraft for testing from either military or commercial
(PCDTV) concept of operations. sources. The primary limitation of LVAD is the
altitude restriction inherent in having an aircrew in an unpressurized environment. LVAD is generally restricted to
25,000 ft and 145 KCAS. The resulting test envelope is shown in Figure 14. The sides of the test envelope are
determined by the aerodynamics of the test vehicle and the programmer parachutes used. Low dynamic pressures
can be achieved by using two fully open CPAS Drogues. The PCDTV will probably not be allowed to freefall for
long due to stability concerns 60,000
q=5 psf q=15 psf q=30 psf q=70 psf
and because its fast PCDTV with 1
acceleration will quickly lose 50,000
CPAS Drogue
reefed at 26%
q=115 psf
q=130 psf
altitude. Therefore, a minimum PCDTV with 2
full open CPAS
q=167 psf
sized programmer such as a 40,000
Drogues
q=204 psf
CPAS Drogue reefed at 26%
Altitude (ft MSL)

will probably be used to

30,000 PCDTV freefall
achieve the test condition. C-130 LVAD

20,000

10,000

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Mach Number

Figure 14. C-130 PCDTV test envelope.

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 C. Orion Parachute Test Vehicle (PTV)
The CPAS Generation I Parachute Test Vehicle (PTV) was built to test a representative parachute system of the
Orion crew module with the full system weight. The PTV outer mold line was intended to represent the CM capsule
shape, within the physical limitation of fitting inside the Lockheed C-17 Globemaster parent aircraft. Unfortunately,
the PTV was heavily damaged during an unsuccessful Cluster Development Test, CDT-2, on July 31, 2008.(10)
The successor test article, PTV2, improves
several aspects of the PTV concept of Orion Height
 142”
operations. The general method of extraction
from the C-17 still uses the Cradle and Platform PTV2 Height
 109”
Separation System (CPSS). As can be seen in
Figure 15, fitting the PTV2 and CPSS inside
the C-17 requires truncating the Orion height Figure 15. Comparison of Orion and PTV2/CPSS.
by 33 inches. Consequently, the moments of
inertia and Center of Gravity (CG) location will be different than the production Orion.
The concept of operations is shown in Figure 16.
Low Velocity Aerial Delivery (LVAD) from C-17 with extraction parachute.
The PTV2 is initially securely lashed down to the Release condition: 145 Knots Calibrated Airspeed up to 25,000 ft MSL,
CPSS. One or two extraction parachutes pull the
mated system clear of the C-17. PTV2 will incorporate
“smart release” avionics to cut the retention system
and at a favorable attitude giving the best chance at
positive separation from the CPSS. The PTV2 design
will minimize protuberance to reduce the risk of
severing a parachute like the first PTV. The CPSS will PTV2 / Cradle separation
reposition to a bottom-down attitude under recovery
parachutes deployed when the extraction parachute(s)
are cut away. Cradle descent

Like the C-130, the C-17 test altitude is limited by

the LVAD technique because the aircrew is located in To parachute test conditions

the unpressurized cargo bay. The test envelope for the

Not to Scale
PTV2, shown in Figure 17, is bounded by the
Figure 16. PTV2 concept of operations.
aerodynamics of the PTV capsule shape and the
programmer parachutes employed. The minimum dynamic pressure curve is defined by two full open CPAS
Drogues as programmers. Although freefalling a test vehicle has been used successfully on other test programs and
was considered for the original PTV, CPAS disallowed freefalling after CDT-2. The minimum reasonable parachute
drag area to ensure control of the
60,000
q=5 psf q=15 psf q=30 psf q=70 psf capsule and remain inflated in the
q=115 psf
wake is equivalent to a single CPAS
50,000
PTV2 with 2 full q=130 psf Drogue reefed at 26%.
open CPAS
Drogues q=167 psf
40,000 q=204 psf
Altitude (ft MSL)

30,000
PTV2 freefall
C-17 LVAD
PTV2 with 1
CPAS Drogue
reefed at 26%
20,000

10,000

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Mach Number

Figure 17. PTV2 test envelope.

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 IV. Notional Test Architectures
The closest approach to the Apollo boilerplate system would be to modify a cargo aircraft in the same way that
the C-133 was modified. However, the only cargo aircraft capable of carrying the full-size Orion CM are much
larger and less available.

A. Lockheed C-17 Globemaster

As with the Gen I PTV,
an Orion must be truncated in
height to fit inside a C-17 for
a standard LVAD extraction.
However, a CAD model
shows that a full size Orion
boilerplate can fit inside a C-
17 if the cargo ramp were
removed, as illustrated in
Figure 18. As with the C-133,
a custom internal truss would
probably be required to hold
the capsule in place.
Unfortunately, C-17
airframes are currently in
high demand so modifying an
airframe, even temporarily,
seems logistically unfeasible.

Figure 18. Fit check of Orion boilerplate inside modified C-17 parent

B. Boeing C-5 Galaxy

A rudimentary check of dimensions shows that a modified Boeing C-5 Galaxy would also be able to
accommodate Orion in the same way. Very few C-5 airframes are still operational.
For many years during the Space Shuttle program, two U.S. Air Force C-5s were available to fly at the pleasure
of NASA should the orbiter perform a trans-Atlantic abort. These would be used to ferry equipment to mate the
orbiter to the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA), for a return flight. As these aircraft were scheduled to be mothballed,
NASA investigated using them for flight tests. However, the structure of the C-5 has always been an issue(11), and
the cargo ramp was determined unsuitable for LVAD of CPAS loads. Removing the ramp for boilerplate drops
would eliminate that issue. Nevertheless, CPAS never had a sufficient budget for aircraft maintenance of what is
becoming a rare aircraft.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 C. Antonov An-124
Many cargo aircraft developed by the former Soviet Union are available through
commercial companies. They are used to ferry large and unusual cargos all over the
world in a timely fashion. The Antonov An-124 (code named “Condor” by NATO) is
the second largest aircraft in the world after the related An-225. The An-124 can fit a
full-size Orion CM inside the cargo bay, as illustrated in Figure 19. Although the
military version of the An-124 was designed for airdrop capability, the former Soviet
Union never exercised that option beyond a short development test program.
The short ramp and clamshell doors on the An-124, seen in Figure 20, offer an
advantage and disadvantage.
When the side doors are open,
the shortened ramp offers a free Figure 19. Orion boilerplate
space for the capsule to drop inside An-124 cargo hold, courtesy
similar to the Apollo from a C- Volga-Dnepr Group.
133. However the structural
integrity of the side doors might be compromised by opening
in flight, so their temporary removal might be required.
Another advantage of the An-124 is the internal crane
system which is rated to lift weights several times heavier
than Orion and can even be used to shift cargo during flight
to meet aircraft stability requirements. Several engineering
Figure 20. An-124 ramp and clamshell doors.
issues remain to be resolved. For example, the Orion
boilerplate must be stowed rigidly during emergency landings and the separation technique must be examined.
The cockpit of the An-124 can remain pressurized for the aircrew while the rear doors are open. If the release
system could be automated, this airframe has the capability to release from significantly higher altitudes than a C-17
or C-130. Ultimately, the positioning and operational costs of this aircraft make its use by CPAS unlikely.

D. Iluhshin Il-76
The Iluyshin Il-76 (named “Candid” by NATO) was the platform of choice for
air delivery by the former Soviet Union. An Il-76 would not be able to fit a
boilerplate Orion shape, but it could accommodate a missile-shaped parachute
compartment vehicle of even larger diameter than the C-130 can carry. A
comparison of the Il-76 dimensions relative to other aircraft is shown in Figure 21.
However, the dimensional advantage over the C-130 is outweighed by aircraft cost.
The entire cabin is unpressurized during cargo extraction, so it offers no altitude
advantage over the C-130. Further, commercial aircrews generally do not have
experience in aerial delivery from this airframe.

Figure 21. Il-76 cargo bay

size relative to other aircraft.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
E. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
NASA has had much experience with using B-52 airframes for flight testing parachute systems, including
Apollo, Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster (SRB)(12), and X-38 Crew Return Vehicle.(13) The Orion outer mold line
is far too large to fit under the wing of a B-52, and unlike Apollo, the parachute compartment diameter is too large
to fit inside the bomb bay. CPAS considered a missile-shaped vehicle with a representative parachute compartment,
called the Large Drop Test Vehicle (LDTV) for releasing from the wing of a B-52.
Several development issues would have to be resolved. The B-52 wing might not be able to handle the full Orion
weight. Store separation certification would have to be conducted, which might easily grow into a program unto
itself.
Another consideration is aircraft cost and availability. Most NASA B-52 tests used a specific airframe based out
of Dryden known by its tail number of 008. Despite its age, that particular aircraft had seen fewer flight hours than
most B-52s in the Air Force fleet. Unfortunately, that airframe was retired in 2004.
Several important modifications
were made on NASA 008. The
starboard inboard flap was fixed in
the horizontal position to
accommodate test vehicles. A notch
was cut into the flap to allow for a
vertical stabilizer on the X-15. This
became important for stabilizing the
SRB Drop Test Vehicle, seen in Figure 22. Shuttle SRB Drop Test Vehicle on B-52.
Figure 22.(14) It is not feasible to
60,000
expect similar accommodation on q=5 psf q=15 psf q=30 psf q=70 psf
LDTV with 2 full
Air Force fleet aircraft. open CPAS B-52 Wing Release q=115 psf
50,000 Drogues
The X-37 was expected to be q=130 psf

drop tested from a B-52 and an q=167 psf

q=204 psf
extensive integration and separation 40,000
Altitude (ft MSL)

(15)
program was performed. A novel LDTV with 1
CPAS Drogue
parachute separation technique was 30,000 reefed at 26%

developed to prevent X-37 re-

contact.(16) However, the B-52 was 20,000

ultimately abandoned in favor of Orion reentry

terminal velocity LDTV freefall
White Knight 1 for cost and 10,000 qbar  128 psf

technical reasons (see section IV-G).

Assuming a release point seen 0
on other programs of Mach 0.8 at 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Mach Number
50,000 ft, the LDTV could easily
get to almost anywhere on the Figure 23. Large Drop Test Vehicle (LDTV) test envelope from B-52.
CPAS Drogue deploy envelope, as
seen in Figure 23.

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
F. Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA)
In 1974 NASA considered using 3 to 5 Air Force-owned C-5A Galaxy aircraft for transporting the Space Shuttle
Orbiter. Concerns over Air Force restrictions and the relative scarcity of C-5As drove selection of more plentiful
used 747 airframes. These two 747s are known as the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA). NASA 905 is a Boeing 747-
123 purchased from American Airlines in 1974. NASA 911 is a Boeing 747-100SR (“Short Range”), purchased
from Japan Airlines in
1990.(17) At the
conclusion of the Space
Shuttle program, the fate
of these two aircraft is
uncertain.
The two SCA were
built with a feature
sometimes called a “fifth
engine” pylon.(18) Figure 24. 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) have a “fifth engine” pylon mount.
Commercial 747s might
be required to carry an inert engine to remote airports for servicing use on another 747. This might accommodate a
wing separation vehicle such as the LDTV. A diagram and potential location on the SCA is shown in Figure 24.
However, the cost of modification and certification would have to be weighed against using a B-52. The low wing,
landing gear, and flap track fairings limit test vehicle geometry. The capabilities at release are not yet known.
Another option would be to modify the aircraft structure to create a cavity for releasing a boilerplate capsule,
similar to the Apollo method. There is precedent to making massive structural modifications to 747 aircraft. In the
late 1970s Boeing proposed using cargo 747 aircraft to carry cruise missiles on rotary launchers and air launch
through an aft door.(19) In 2005 Boeing modified three 747-400s into Large Cargo Freighters to carry ferry an entire
fuselages of the 787 “Dreamliner” from suppliers to assembly facilities.(20) NASA modified a 747SP to carry an
airborne telescope called SOFIA.(21) However, any modification of the pressure vessel is well beyond the current
CPAS budget.

G. Scaled Composites White Knight

Rather than retrofitting an existing aircraft, the only way to ensure a carrier
vehicle meets requirements is to design a new aircraft. During the early
development of the Space Transportation System, several designs included
releasing a reusable spacecraft from a carrier aircraft in flight, though such
concepts have been on NASA drawing boards since at least the 1960s.(17) The
requirements for high altitude separation invariably lead to an aircraft with
twin fuselages and very high aspect ratio wings, not unlike the Scaled
Composites White Knight 1 and White Knight 2.
White Knight 1 was ultimately selected to release the X-37 vehicle, shown Figure 25. Scaled Composites White
in Figure 25, as a less expensive alternative to the B-52. However, White Knight 1 carying X-37.
Knight 1 is limited in payload weight and test article dimensions. Although
White Knight 2 has a larger size and payload capacity, it is unknown if any of the full-weight CPAS test articles
would be compatible.

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 H. Balloon Systems
CPAS is currently scheduled to use balloons for the high-altitude portion of its test
program. There is precedent for flight testing parachute systems under capsule shapes from a
high-altitude balloon. The European Space Agency (esa) performed qualification flights for
the Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator (ARD) by dropping from balloons at 23 km (~75,500
ft). The ARD had a shape and mass similar to Apollo. The system was stabilized in flight
with ballast and spring-damper system during an extended freefall period of 49.5 seconds.(22)
The retracted damper system can be seen in Figure 26. The test parachutes functioned and the
test article was recovered in the Mediterranean.
However, an Orion-sized vehicle would be more limited in altitude due to its weight. High
60,000
altitude
q=5 psf q=15 psf q=30 psf q=70 psf balloons
q=115 psf expand to
50,000 q=130 psf
Balloon
Release
massive Figure 26. Atmospheric
q=167 psf
Orion boilerplate
volumes Reentry Demonstrator
40,000 q=204 psf
with 2 full open as a preparing for balloon
Altitude (ft MSL)

CPAS Drogues
function ascent.
30,000
of local
Orion boilerplate
with 1 CPAS Drogue density. The release ceiling is
reefed at 26%
20,000 currently being determined, but
a conceptual envelope for an
10,000 Orion boilerplate is shown in
Figure 27. Even from a release
0 at 45,000 ft MSL, the minimal
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 programmer parachute prevents
Mach Number
Orion from achieving the
Figure 27. Conceptual envelopes for Orion boilerplate dropped from high “shelf.”
altitude balloon. In order to get to the “shelf”
either the programmer must be
eliminated or the test article needs to be more streamlined. CPAS could replicate the ARD ballast system in lieu of a
programmer. However, the
60,000 Orion reentry
current approach is to supplement q=5 psf q=15 psf q=30 psf terminal velocity q=70 psf
qbar  128 psf
boilerplate drops with some tests
q=115 psf
using the more streamlined 50,000 Balloon q=130 psf
Release
PCDTV from a balloon. This q=167 psf
allows the PCDTV to achieve 40,000 q=204 psf
Altitude (ft MSL)

higher dynamic pressures at

PCDTV with 1
higher altitudes than from a C- 30,000 CPAS Drogue
reefed at 26%
130. The resulting envelopes are
shown in Figure 28. 20,000 Ballast-
One of the limiting factors of stabilized
Orion
this technique is the large test 10,000
range required. A survey of
potential test ranges is underway.
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Mach Number

Figure 28. Conceptual envelopes for ballast-stabilized Orion boilerplate or

PCDTV dropped from high altitude balloon.

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 V. Test Range Limitations

Two CPAS tests were conducted at the Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake near Ridgecrest, CA.
The majority of the CPAS flight tests to date were conducted at the Robby Drop Zone (DZ) at Yuma Proving
Ground (YPG) in Yuma, AZ. Both of these facilities are in a desert environment with different low altitude
atmospheric properties than the ocean. Early Orion designs allowed for landing on dry ground, but the current
architecture calls for splashdown in the ocean.
Range rules at YPG require all parachutes to land within the DZ. A thorough description can be found in the
paper describing the CPAS footprint tool.(23) Of particular concern would be for programmer parachutes cut away at
high altitude to be carried by the prevailing winds on to nearby highway 95, interfering with civilian traffic. The test
article should land on the cleared area, both for range safety, and because this area has been cleared of vegetation
which might damage test parachutes. Should any of the parachutes fail to function, it is essential that the ballistic
trajectory of the test article stay out of the keep out zones occupied by ground cameras and their operators. Further,
no significant masses, such as ballast or extraction sleds are allowed to freefall to the ground.
High altitude flight tests will therefore need to be conducted at alternative test ranges. Other sites are currently
being investigated.

VI. Conclusion
Flight testing of the entire CPAS Drogue deploy envelope will require certain compromises due to technical,
cost, and schedule limitations. The Apollo program was able to test a functional system with representative
trajectories including failure modes. However, the size and weight of Orion make many of the same test techniques
prohibitive. Further, the CPAS budget does not allow for operating dedicated aircraft, which rules out making useful
modifications that could increase the fidelity of testing.
A combination of several options is under consideration.

Acknowledgments
The authors wishes to acknowledge John Scoggins, formerly of CPAS, for CAD modeling Orion inside a C-17.
The Volga-Dnepr Unique Air Cargo, Inc. provided information and photographs for the An-124 and Il-76.

References
1. Sebastian, Thomas and Tolson, Robert. Methods for the Determination of Aerodynamic Parameters and
Trajectory Reconstruction of the Orion Command Module from Scale Model Aeroballistic Flight Data. January 5 -
8, 2009. 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, Florida. AIAA paper 2009-882.
2. Apollo Summary, a Historical Perspective (Presentation). CPAS Manager's Review. May 29, 2008.
3. Development Tests Apollo ELS Increased Capability Program (scan of Appendix E foldout).
4. Murray, H. L. Parachute Subsystem Apollo Block II Increased Capability Earth Landing System Final Report of
the Series 85 Qualification Drop Tests, Volume I. Newbury Park, CA : Northrop Corporation, Ventura Division,
August 1968. NVR-6070 A, NASA-CR-152750.
5. Bledsoe, Kristin, Englert, Megan, Morris, Aaron, and Olmstead, Randy. Overview of the Crew Exploration
Vehicle Parachute Assembly System (CPAS) Generation I Main and Cluster Development Test Results. May 4 - 7,
2009. 20th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar, Seattle, Washington.
AIAA paper 2009-2940.
6. Morris, Aaron, et. al. Summary of CPAS Gen II Parachute Performance. May 23 - 26, 2011. 21st AIAA
Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar, Dublin, Ireland. (Submitted for
publication).
7. Delurgio, Philip R., et al. Recovery System for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle. 1997. AIAA paper 97-
1513.
8. Space Exploration Technologies Corporation. SpaceX press releases. [Online] August 12, 2010. [Cited:
September 7, 2010.] http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20100820.


The DZ is referred to as Robby when the aircraft flies Northward, as was the case in all these tests, or as La Posa if
the aircraft flies Southward.
15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
9. King, Ron, Hengel, John E. and Wolf, Dean. Ares I First Stage Booster Deceleration System: An Overview.
May 4 - 7, 2009. 20th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar, Seattle,
Washington. AIAA paper 2009-2984.
10. Machin, Ricardo A. and Evans, Carol T. Cluster Development Test 2 an Assessment of a Failed Test. May 4 -
7, 2009. 20th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar, Seattle, WA. AIAA
paper 2009-2902.
11. Badrocke, Mike and Gunston, Bill. Boeing Aircraft Cutaways: The History of Boeing Aircraft Company. New
York : Banres & Noble Books, 2001. ISBN 0-7607-2500-4.
12. Moog, R. D., Sheppard, J. D. and Kross, D. A. Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Decelerator Subsystem
Drop Test Results. AIAA Paper No. 79-0463.
13. Bennett, Thomas W. and Fox, Roy. Design, Development & Flight Testing of the NASA X-38 7,500 ft2
Parafoil Recovery System. May 19 - 22, 2003. 17th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology
Conference and Seminar, Monterey, CA. AIAA paper 2003-2107.
14. Aerodynamic Analysis of the Solid Rocket Propellant Booster Deceleration Subsystem Drop Tests. November
1978. NASA-CR-170670, TR-230-1942.
15. Paez, Carlos A. The Development of the X-37 Re-Entry Vehicle. July 11 - 14, 2004. 40th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Fort Lauderdale, FL. AIAA paper 2004-4186.
16. Whitmore, Steven A., et al. Development and Testing of a Drogue Parachute System for X-37 ALTV / B-52H
Separation. Reno, NV : s.n., January 5 - 8, 2004. 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. AIAA paper
2004-873.
17. Jenkins, Dennis R. Space Shuttle: The History of the National Transporation System, The First 100 Missions.
Stillwater, MN : Voyageur Press, 2001. ISBN 0-9633974-5-1.
18. Boeing Commercial Airplane Company. 747 Airplane Characteristics Airport Planning. [Online] May 1984.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/747_123sp.pdf. D6-58326.
19. FLIGHT International. November 5, 1977. p. 1345.
20. 747 Large Cargo Freighter. Boeing corporate web site. [Online]
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/photorelease/q1/pr_050222g-1.html.
21. Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy. SOFIA Science Center. [Online] [Cited: October 6, 2010.]
http://www.sofia.usra.edu.
22. Rives, J. and Leveugle, T. Atmospheric Re-entry Demonstrator Descent and Recovery Sub-System
Qualification Test Capsule Stabilization during the Free Fall Phase. 1997. AIAA paper 97-1440.
23. Bledsoe, Kristin J. Development of the Sasquatch Drop Test Footprint Tool. May 23 - 26, 2011. 21st AIAA
Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar, Dublin, Ireland. (Submitted for
publication).

16
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics